Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

yeah, startrek always did it alot better.

...

ever notice how 95% of sci-fi tv/movies/games recreate WWII technology and tactics and throw it in space? speaking of which, the GNB mod looks pretty darn cool, and i cant wait to see it after mounts can be researched.

i cant imagine realistic superscience being that fun to play in a game. big red buttons, computers, long range weapons destroying planets from lightyears away. face it, as soon as we can travel at FTL speeds, we will be able to kill things over ridiculous distances at the same speed. these games are all anacronisim, but i like em anyway.

[ June 25, 2002, 04:16: Message edited by: Puke ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

It would depend how the FTL drive works Puke..Warp Points as described in SE4 wouldn't do anything of the sort.

Now, a large rock traveling at 500c.. THAT would maje an impact.

Phoenix-D

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Baron Munchausen perhaps they operate by a set of phyics that we have not yet discovered? Their technology is based upon technology we do not understand. Perhaps that is why the Vipers can "bank." To give them a tatical advantage over the Cyclon fighters.

If you take our own history, and take an Aircraft carriar of today back to WWI era, they would not under stand the physics and technology of it or the aircraft that it carries.

Ever wonder how life could evolve on a planet with a metane atomosphere? The moment they created flame, kaboooooom!

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe they just bank cause if they didn't you would have colonial warrior puree all over the inside of the cowling. The vipers move similer to how an aircraft in an aptmosphere would because that lessens the impact of the G forces on the body of the pilot. Plus it looks really cool... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

As far as travelling in curves and arcs, I am pretty sure that vectors of movement and inertia of mass apply in zero G as well as in aptmosphere and gravity. If an object is travelling in a straight line in space and then changes direction of thrust, it won't simply change direction of movement at sharp anlges. It's path will curve, will it not? Isn't that pretty much the whole reason calculus was invented?

That isn't defying physics, and aircraft don't change direction in curves because of "leaning" on atmosphere. They do it for the same reason ships in space do it, because it takes time to overcome inertia and change directions.

In fact, an aircraft in an atmosphere theoretically could turn at a sharper angle because it can change the angle of attack of it's wings and bank into the turn. This will add the wings lift to the thrust of the engines in changing vectors. It's not a big difference, and it takes a lot of skill and a really well designed aircraft. But a viper in a vacuum would have no such assistance. It would have only it's engines for forward thrust and some kind of reaction jets or moveable thrust cowling for direction changes.

(Btw, I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I play one on T.V. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Geo

[ June 25, 2002, 14:22: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Well, if the thrust was not coming out of the back of the Viper that explanation might make some sense... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I guess 'realistic' space physics would be too boring for 'mass entertainment media', so we're doomed to stupid fantasy physics in any SciFi shows or movies...

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't see this as a problem either. Of course you have to assume they figured out some means of generating artificial gravity, cause otherwise it's a moot point. But you said as much yourself. Once you have that hurdle crossed then there are a couple things that could easily explain the rest of it and would be perfectly reasonable.

The artificial gravity fields could be areas on the hanger deck. Why do you assume the entire deck would have the same gravity field everywhere? You could have areas of little or no gravity for the ships to land and move about by thrusters, and then parking pads where the gravity is normal for walking in and out of the ship. And the gravity in the parking pads could be switched on and off when needed.

You could also assume that the gravity field IS uniform across the whole surface of the hanger deck, but that it only extends upwards a few feet. Things in contact with the deck, people walking around, etc. would stay in contact as they are under normal gravity. But a ship taliking off or landing would feel less and less gravity the farther it got from the surface. Similer to how it is on Earth, but the artificial gravity force would drop off much more rapidly. Instead of needing to travel a few miles to break free, you would only need to travel a few feet to break free from the artifical gravity field.

This would have some odd effects on the people walking around. They would have a slight but perceptable differance in the "weight" of their feet compared to their heads. But with time and training people would adapt and get their "Space legs" and it would not affect them. People watching them move about would not even be able to see a differance in their movements. Thrown objects would not travel in expected parabolic paths as you would see on a planet, but throwing things about a hanger deck isn't a good idea even in the surface Navy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geo

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, you missed my point. What I am saying is that BG is more realistic than you are giving it credit for. I think you are misunderstanding the physics involved in moving about in zero G. The thrust, the majority of it anyway, would be coming out the back, otherwise you wouldn't be going forward. You would also apply side thrust, either by jets on the side of the nose, or by angling some of the thrust coming out the back, to turn the ship.

But however you turn it, your course is not going to change in sharp anlges, it's going to curve.

Banking and other orinetation changes will not have the effect they do on an aircraft, because there are no lift generating surfaces. But they will serve other purposes. Bringing weapons to bear, keeping the pilot in his seat and in control, etc.

Geo

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

i liked the space physics in b5.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, B5 was often very realistic. You actually saw fighters swing around to reverse their thrust, and you could see maneuvering thrusters firing. There was some 'swooping and banking' but it was directly relatable to the direction of visible thrust. The ships in most SciFi from Star Wars to Buck Rogers to BSG behave as if they have an atmosphere.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, but the problem he was describing is the fact that those ships turn as if they had the main thrust coming out of the bottom, instead of the back.

The ship pulls up by 10 degrees, and ends up going directly forwards (10 degrees off the old course), and at the same speed as before.
To do that, you'd need a large thrust downwards (and a little bit of retro), and the main engines in the back certainly can't vector the thrust that much (&gt; 90 degrees!)

There also seems to be an awful lot unmodded SE4's Thrust = Speed in these shows, too.